The Chinese counter-culture is alive and well and thriving in a little village called Nanjie.

It may not be 'nice', but it needs to be said.  'Reconciler' strikes me as another German who, like many of his ancestors two generations ago, doesn't seem to care about a "repulsive" system of government.  As long as they make the trains run on time....he'll be impressed.

"The only significant difference between China's government and those of the Western bloc..." he writes.   Mein Gott, besides the illusion of belief in a "Western bloc", how is it possible that one can go through the contemporary German (Western) education sytem, and write this kind of stuff?!    The Politbureau knows what new ideology is needed to impress young Chinese, but apparently it works on young Westerners as well...again. 

Reconciler: All of my chinese students here in Wuhan are the most optimistic, forward-looking, patriotic people I have ever met.

An ESL teacher; that's all we need...

There's only one reason ESL teachers go to East Asia...the bar-scene not working out back home?

"7. China is separated from being a recognized world power because. While her economic performance impresses, her system of government strikes one as repulsive."

China is indeed a recognized world power. "Her" Economic performance is in tune with her military and politico-diplomatic power. Growing and growing... The only significant difference between Chinas government and those of the western bloc is that the KPC delivers the goods while western governments loose shipments, lie about what's being shipped, fill their own pockets or get their stagecoaches raided by thugs at every other corner.

Switch on your TVs these days and tune in to CCTV if you can. That is what I call identity. Make no mistake, it's not all just propaganda. All of my chinese students here in Wuhan are the most optimistic, forward-looking, patriotic people I have ever met. They know how their government works, how large corruption is. But they still have the capacity to see how many things their leaders do right.

Apologists and pacifists can no longer give Iran the benefit of the doubt.  The latest series of missile tests shatter any credibility that re-interpretations or translations of Ahmadinejad's speeches, allegations of document falsification or support for civilian nuclear sovereignty lent Iran, if any.

Iran could take the Libyan path and benefit, however, it has chosen to follow the North Korean playbook.  Iran's aggressive rhetoric, development and testing of offensive ballistic missiles, secret uranium-enrichment facilities and active support of terrorism in the absence of a threat can no longer be ignored. 

The window for diplomacy is shrinking rapidly.  The onus is on Iran to prove its peaceful intentions and compliance with the IAEA and the UN, and adherence to the NPT. 

In the main, I concur with you KO.  Unfortunately, in addition to naïveté, the Bush administration decided to develop and reconstruct both Afghanistan and Iraq in order to appease opponents of the war.  I also agree with much of marcfrans' reply.  The notion of "combating global terrorism" is as ludicrous to me as a "war on war" is.  Those Western European countries with significant Muslim minorities need not look to the battlefields of Central-South Asia or Mesopotamia, although it is unlikely that France would ever request military assistance to re-occupy its notorious banlieues.  All the United States and its willing allies can do is maintenance.  As the problem is Islam, not Islamism, militancy is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg, and lopping it off from time to time does nothing for the mass beneath the surface. 

Perhaps the fear of combat deaths is individualism run amok.  The individual is now too important to die for a cause, to have children, to save for the future, to contribute to his or her community or to be a member of something larger than his or herself.  Every time a tank accidentally rolls backwards and squashes a soldier, a dozen generals must convene for an inquiry...

@ KO

I agree with you that a separationist strategy would make more sense than the current 'nationbuilding' efforts, especially from the perspective of those countries who are actually doing the fighting against radical islam.   At the same time, Mr Handlery has not really pronounced on the relative merits of either strategy. His complaint under point 4 was essentially about the impact of small losses on the steadfastness of Western publics  to do their share in combating global terrorism.  Presumably, the separationist strategy would be much less costly than the nationbuilding efforts but, at a minimum, it would still involve "small losses".  Mr Handlery's complaint is about a lack of backbone, not about any particular strategy.  It would be interesting to know his views on the ideas of Lawrence Auster. 

Also, I suspect that many Western publics would be even less tolerant of small losses associated with a separationist strategy than with the current strategy.  Things will probably have to get much worse before these publics will develop a backbone.  Based on past historical experience, I expect things to get much worse in the coming years and that (at least some of) these publics will develop a backbone in the end.         

4. Re "the only course of action that can effectively combat global terror": I can't agree that costly nation-building and unrequited hand-holding in Iraq and Afghanistan or any other location are the only way to fight the war against anti-Western Islamic terrorism, aka Islam. In fact, those are probably doomed strategies because they ultimately depend on the conversion of Muslims to liberalism, which is highly unlikely. The more effective way to combat the jihad is to destroy the jihadists' capacity for waging it wherever such capacity appears. There are two prongs to this: Militarily, attack and destroy any accumulation of power directed against the West, then withdraw without engaging the Muslims politically. As Lawrence Auster has said in his discussions of "Separationism," an attack or invasion at intervals of several years will be much cheaper and more effective than futile nation-building. Civilly, disengage from and isolate the Muslim world. Eliminate and reverse immigration, including student and tourist immigration. Reduce trade to zero. Subject Muslim organizations to surveillance and prosecution. By disengaging from the Muslim world and eliminating Muslims from the West, Westerners will greatly reduce the ability of Muslims to wage jihad.

As it is, Muslims pay no price for their hostility to the West. Only when they have to pay a steep price will they even consider relinquishing that hostility.

The contrast between the Separationist strategy and what Western countries are actually doing reveals that Western governments do not take jihad seriously and actually despise Muslims as impotent Third Worlders who cannot really affect the West. That is a dangerous delusion based on the fact that liberalism does not attach any importance to Western culture or peoples and therefore does not see their destruction by jihad as a real threat. Contrary to its tactical multiculturalism, liberalism views religion and culture as a set of indistinguishable bad practices and philosophical untruths. Liberalism does not understand its own indispensable cultural infrastructure.

RE:

2.  The cancellation of the ABM sites in Central Europe had more to do with cost savings than appeasing Russian demands.  The plan for the US Navy to provide missile defense with Aegis-equipped warships is superior.  These mobile ABM systems be deployed within 500 km of missile launch sites, targeting multi-stage missiles in the first few seconds of flight at 5,000 km/hr with a massive infra-red signature.  Other ABM initiatives target missiles minutes before impact when they are small warheads surrounded by decoys and traveling at 40,000 km/hr.  Moreover, this naval ABM system could be deployed in the Persian Gulf and the South China Sea.  The United States has not betrayed East-Central Europe by cancelling the initiative; popular opinion was opposed to it, and Warsaw was only interested in Patriot missiles and upgrades to its air defense systems. 

3.  Sad but true.

4.  Indeed.  War is a numbers game.

5.  We will have to see whether Iran complies with IAEA and UN regulations by providing immediate and unfettered access to the new facilities near Qom. 

7. China is a recognized Great Power.

8.  Much as the Turks in Germany demand that their co-ethnics be permitted to flood the country, access its benefits and opportunities, and live above the law and culture, Hispanics in the United States do the same. 

9.  Duly noted.